NRL Clubs on death row: Gallop

[mustapha_beer]

Breaking for ads mid game is just a disgrace.

I hear you mate....when I'm watching a game, I'm only interested in.....THE GAME....couldn't give a monkeys what new burger Mac Hungry Greaseballs are offering or how much I can buy a sodding Grevillea for from Bunnings.....and then, when coverage resumes and Ray Warren has to tell me what I've just missed in the preceding play.....we're talking remote control through the window....

 

[scottmac]

I thought the coverage was shit, Ch9 really have no idea about bringing the atmosphere of the game to the viewer. They turn down the crowd mic's for some reason so you get no sense of involvement.

Breaking for ads mid game is just a disgrace.

You can't leave the crowd mics up at a game of league. All you would hear is incoherent crap about how the ref doesn't know what he is doing. There is no organised cheering except for a few parra...parra... You wouldn't want to hear it.

 

[scottmac]

I hope that if A-league goes free to air it is kept away from 9

 

[dibo]

I hope that if A-league goes free to air it is kept away from 9

i hope it goes to whoever's willing to pay a lot of money for it.

 

[serious14]

I hope that if A-league goes free to air it is kept away from 9

i hope it goes to whoever's willing to pay a lot of money for it.

Foxtel??

Seriously, free-to-air is a dying concept...... it has been everywhere else in the world for a long time now (example - America: the best programs all belong to Pay-TV, HBO being supreme amongst them all.  And before anyone says it, the exception to this rule is the BBC, BUT, having said that, every single person in Britain who owns a TV pays a license fee straight to the BBC), and this idea is now just making it's way down to our little part of the world.    And it might be a symptom of the modern corporate way of things, but it seriously is a case of "you get what you pay for", and quite frankly, I'd be happy to see the A-League and the Socceroos stay with Foxtel.

Now, by all means, license out a highlights show to the FTA networks, but in no way should we give them any sort of exclusivity, especially after the way they've treated football since...... well, forever.

 

[Part_Timer]

well said...

 

[dibo]

I hope that if A-league goes free to air it is kept away from 9

i hope it goes to whoever's willing to pay a lot of money for it.

Foxtel??

Seriously, free-to-air is a dying concept...... it has been everywhere else in the world for a long time now (example - America: the best programs all belong to Pay-TV, HBO being supreme amongst them all.  And before anyone says it, the exception to this rule is the BBC, BUT, having said that, every single person in Britain who owns a TV pays a license fee straight to the BBC), and this idea is now just making it's way down to our little part of the world.    And it might be a symptom of the modern corporate way of things, but it seriously is a case of "you get what you pay for", and quite frankly, I'd be happy to see the A-League and the Socceroos stay with Foxtel.

Now, by all means, license out a highlights show to the FTA networks, but in no way should we give them any sort of exclusivity, especially after the way they've treated football since...... well, forever.

spoken like someone who doesn't much give a shit if people can't see the sports they want because they don't have pay tv...

FTA/subscription hybrid models are very workable assuming you've got a product that people like. that's basically how the other two big codes work, and it makes a shedload. cricket is essentially 100% fta and still does very well. nobody's going to suggest that any less than *most* games will be on pay tv, but some on FTA is a perfect way to promote the game.

don't forget that even now, only 30% of households have pay tv. restricting live games to a small minority of the population is like only putting clubs in NSW and hoping to expand from there - it's ignoring the vast maority of the country.

 

[northernspirit]

dibo is right tho, fta would give a far wider appeal and draw more people to the game... imagine if we had our game as over hyped as the nrl and afl - all the bandwaggoners would start coming and our crowds would double the nrl - we are already just about on par with avg attendances with nrl without all the exposure, hype and media bias

 

[Arabmariner]

I hope that if A-league goes free to air it is kept away from 9

i hope it goes to whoever's willing to pay a lot of money for it.

Foxtel??

Seriously, free-to-air is a dying concept...... it has been everywhere else in the world for a long time now (example - America: the best programs all belong to Pay-TV, HBO being supreme amongst them all.  And before anyone says it, the exception to this rule is the BBC, BUT, having said that, every single person in Britain who owns a TV pays a license fee straight to the BBC), and this idea is now just making it's way down to our little part of the world.    And it might be a symptom of the modern corporate way of things, but it seriously is a case of "you get what you pay for", and quite frankly, I'd be happy to see the A-League and the Socceroos stay with Foxtel.

Now, by all means, license out a highlights show to the FTA networks, but in no way should we give them any sort of exclusivity, especially after the way they've treated football since...... well, forever.

F**k someone agrees with me.The sooner all sport is on pay TV the better.A highlights package is all I would trust FTA TV with.

Give them any more and they,ll only f**k it up.

We,ll be watching KFC ads while goals are being scored!

Leave FTA to the NRL............They can die together!!

 

[serious14]

I hope that if A-league goes free to air it is kept away from 9

i hope it goes to whoever's willing to pay a lot of money for it.

Foxtel??

Seriously, free-to-air is a dying concept...... it has been everywhere else in the world for a long time now (example - America: the best programs all belong to Pay-TV, HBO being supreme amongst them all.  And before anyone says it, the exception to this rule is the BBC, BUT, having said that, every single person in Britain who owns a TV pays a license fee straight to the BBC), and this idea is now just making it's way down to our little part of the world.    And it might be a symptom of the modern corporate way of things, but it seriously is a case of "you get what you pay for", and quite frankly, I'd be happy to see the A-League and the Socceroos stay with Foxtel.

Now, by all means, license out a highlights show to the FTA networks, but in no way should we give them any sort of exclusivity, especially after the way they've treated football since...... well, forever.

spoken like someone who doesn't much give a shit if people can't see the sports they want because they don't have pay tv...

FTA/subscription hybrid models are very workable assuming you've got a product that people like. that's basically how the other two big codes work, and it makes a shedload. cricket is essentially 100% fta and still does very well. nobody's going to suggest that any less than *most* games will be on pay tv, but some on FTA is a perfect way to promote the game.

don't forget that even now, only 30% of households have pay tv. restricting live games to a small minority of the population is like only putting clubs in NSW and hoping to expand from there - it's ignoring the vast maority of the country.

Whoa whoa whoa, I'm not suggesting we leave FTA out of this at all, I'm not stupid.  What I am saying/hoping is that FTA should not have any creative control over football what-so-ever.  It would work on some sort of licensing system, whereby FTA gets to replay Fox's coverage in a "Match of the Day" scenario, as with........... well, all of Europe.  FTA Coverage of Sport in Australia, outside of Football on SBS and AFL on Channel 10, is _laughable_.  There's a video that was made by a Melbourne fan running around on YouTube of the Australia-Uruguay shootout that has Channel 9 promoting their new piece of crap sitcom in the middle of it all, and going to an ad as Aloi$i comes in to take the shot.  It's a funny piece of exaggeration, but the scary thing is that would not be far from the truth.

I understand where you're coming from Dibo, but that train of thought is symptomatic of pretty much everything that ever happens in Australia - so 10 years ago.  Pay TV is the way of the future, that's just the way things are going to be.  It's already that way in a lot of other places........ shite, even Thailand has more football on Pay then on free-to-air.  _Thailand_!!!!

And from a more petty point of view - none of the FTA networks (aside from SBS) deserves to have football.  They've rubbished on it for 50 years, yet all of a sudden they realise that's going to be a new cash cow in 5 - 10 years time, and here they come crawling back.  F*ck 'em says I.

 

[Sean]

Channel 10 would be a good partner to foxtel in coverage.
Their package for the Beckham game was impressive and their attitude towards football is less biased and more covered in their news programs/sports tonight than what is covered on 7 or 9.

I think they are eyeing off the A-league and will make a bid.

 

[scottmac]

I agree they would be a good partner to foxtel, but i reckon the highlights package idea suggested is the only option for FTA to not screw things up.

 

[FFC Mariner]

FTA must never (ever) be allowed any production input into football coverage. The debacle of ads mid game, mindless product flogs etc have shown what they will do.

10's coverage of the Galaxy game was cringeworthy.

Easiest solution is leave it to Fox and simply take their feed.

 

[dibo]

FTA Coverage of Sport in Australia, outside of Football on SBS and AFL on Channel 10, is _laughable_.  There's a video that was made by a Melbourne fan running around on YouTube of the Australia-Uruguay shootout that has Channel 9 promoting their new piece of crap sitcom in the middle of it all, and going to an ad as Aloi$i comes in to take the shot.  It's a funny piece of exaggeration, but the scary thing is that would not be far from the truth.

But thats just it its exaggeration based on not much more than fear.

I understand where you're coming from Dibo, but that train of thought is symptomatic of pretty much everything that ever happens in Australia - so 10 years ago.  Pay TV is the way of the future, that's just the way things are going to be.  It's already that way in a lot of other places........ shite, even Thailand has more football on Pay then on free-to-air.  _Thailand_!!!!

Leaving aside the still hypothetical possibility of the Feds getting interesting on digital multi-channelling of sport, our positions are closer than you think. Fox will be broadcasting most of the matches no matter how the deal is structured, simply because FTA networks dont have enough room in their schedules and football is not going to be their number one program. Theyll show a match live, maybe in ten years they might show two. Well be in a similar place to rugby league.

Theres an important thing to note here when the AFL did their last rights deal, they were bought up for an absolute bomb by the 7/10 partnership. Fox dont hold any direct rights. 7/10 then had to negotiate with Fox a price that Fox would be willing to pay to show games. At one point when protracted negotiations looked like they might falter, SBS was tapped on the shoulder and essentially asked if they might be able to show some games. 7/10 had to offer it to somebody because the structure of the deal was such that the games had to be shown.

This is a massively important point for us, and will influence the nature of any future deal. We write a clause into the contract saying each and every game must be shown live (and presumably in keeping with FIFA requirements, with game time uninterrupted by advertisements) and thats the landscape that the networks have to operate in.

If a FTA network is interested, specify that at least one match must be shown live on FTA before content is sold on to Fox, and a viewable time (not necessarily prime time, but not at 3AM) highlights package must air on FTA.

Remember also that with the Socceroos coming to FTA again (through the help of the anti-siphoning list) the FTA network who buys that will likely be interested in the rest of the package a dozen games a year pales in comparison to at least 21 weeks plus finals to cement their home of football status.

And from a more petty point of view - none of the FTA networks (aside from SBS) deserves to have football.  They've rubbished on it for 50 years, yet all of a sudden they realise that's going to be a new cash cow in 5 - 10 years time, and here they come crawling back.  F*ck 'em says I.

Deserve schmeserve. The rights arent going to go for peanuts, these f**kers will pay good cash. Once theyve paid good cash (and have a reasonable prospect of making some more from the game too) theyre in the boat with us.

Think about what theyre trying to do. Theyre trying to make money. They dont really care how they do it. The burying of the NSL by 7/C7 was done I think partly with the knowledge that they couldnt make a cent from it at the time and partly with the hope that wed go away and die and the market would remain the comfortable oligopoly of NRL/AFL/cricket.

Clearly were back from the dead, and looking healthier than ever. The games changed the oligopoly will have a new player. If they can make money from us, theyll be interested in keeping us healthy just as much as the others.

 

[serious14]

Yes Aaron, I'm aware of all that - but as Greenpole said, FTA should have no say in any of this.  If they do choose to buy the rights, they _must_ buy them on Foxtel's terms and with all FIFA requirements kept in place, otherwise I'm not interested.  None of this "oh, but but, an advertisement straight after a goal would synergise downward revenue streams blah blah blah", f*cking NO!!!!    Either it's a highlights show in primetime, a 'Match of the Day' scenario on Sunday evening, a game on no more than 90 minutes delay, or a live game ripped straight from the Foxtel feed, as with the Wallabies games on Fox and 7.

 

[dibo]

Yes Aaron, I'm aware of all that - but as Greenpole said, FTA should have no say in any of this.  If they do choose to buy the rights, they _must_ buy them on Foxtel's terms and with all FIFA requirements kept in place, otherwise I'm not interested.  None of this "oh, but but, an advertisement straight after a goal would synergise downward revenue streams blah blah blah", f*cking NO!!!!    Either it's a highlights show in primetime, a 'Match of the Day' scenario on Sunday evening, a game on no more than 90 minutes delay, or a live game ripped straight from the Foxtel feed, as with the Wallabies games on Fox and 7.

but you're clearly not 'aware of all that' if you can't see how the game's changed, or you simply ignored the second part of my post/rant. this stuff can all be sorted in the contract negotiations, and taking frankly irrational a priori positions like 'FTA must never (ever) be allowed any production input into football coverage' is simply cutting ourselves off from where the money's at.

if there's something we want in the coverage, we specify it in the broadcast agreement.

FTA will want ad breaks. we don't (in line with FIFA preference). we specify that in the agreement, there will be no ads. it's really that simple. they may be replaced with on-screen promos or whatever like on the cricket coverage, that's the cost of doing business.

 

[serious14]

but you're clearly not 'aware of all that' if you can't see how the game's changed

I'm more than aware of how the game's changed - in line with everywhere else in the world, Pay TV is the way to go.  I fail to see why we should bend over backwards to accommodate FTA.  They get a Fox feed, with no creative input, or nothing at all.  Lay your own ads over the game if you must, but I'm sick of football having to concede to others - it's about time we dictated the terms.  Lest we have a repeat of the C7 debacle.

 

[dibo]

but you're clearly not 'aware of all that' if you can't see how the game's changed

I'm more than aware of how the game's changed - in line with everywhere else in the world, Pay TV is the way to go.  I fail to see why we should bend over backwards to accommodate FTA.  They get a Fox feed, with no creative input, or nothing at all.  Lay your own ads over the game if you must, but I'm sick of football having to concede to others - it's about time we dictated the terms.  Lest we have a repeat of the C7 debacle.

how would we be 'bending over' or 'conceding' anything?

 

[Sean]

bending over and conceding to the public who dont have foxtel?

 

[serious14]

Guys, I'm not against FTA having a delayed game or a highlights show........ but it should be the Foxtel feed and nothing more.